It obviously gives us guarantees in terms of what the source will do and what the compiled code should need.

These do not provide memory safety, so memory bugs would not be solved by these. They will find unexpected behavioural issues, though.

The precondition and postcondition statements are not cunningly-disguised assert statements because they're not asserted at runtime. They're enforced at static check and/or compile time.

The policy hints mean that if the kernel is doing something you're not expecting, you find this when testing the code. Equally, though, it means that users cannot cause the software to venture into realms unknown through many of the usual attack vectors because those will require permissions that aren't there.

You didn't read my post... you just made up what you wanted to hear and answered that. It's not an argument against choice... it's a prediction that it will inevitably fail. People don't want to take a 23 hour flight. There is simply a limit to endurance there. Hell, here in the UK you've got loads of people who refuse to fly more than 2 hours. There's just not enough people willing to suffer that much to make this program commercially viable.. that means they'll have custom planes that are unprofitable on any route... which means QANTAS will have it's hands out yet again for government money (after doing all they can to kill competition in the Australian domestic market). If anything, you're arguing against choice as we'll have to force people to take flights they don't want to take in order for this not to fail. First to fall will be the PER-LHR flights as you're flying from nowhere to somewhere (Perth to London if you're too lazy to google an IATA code), the only reason you'd take this flight is if you're going from Perth on to another city. Perth is literally on the arse end of nowhere.

they may not have the right... but a somnambulant population will let it happen, the "dont tread on me" types will happily let the "right" government walk all over them and worse, many will even attack those that resist.

I mean just a few articles down there's one describing how the FCC is being used to censor media... where are the "I need mah gurns to protect me from the gubbermint" types now... now is your time to shine... instead you're making excuses because you like who it's currently targetting and are too thick and short sighted to see how it will be turned against you next.

Turns out as long as you let them do the odd school shooting every few weeks, they're quite happy with an oppressive government.

This reminds me of the plans BA looked at to run the Concorde to Australia. It never made it passed the planning stage as it would take six fuelling stops, only save a few hours at best due to the refuelling stops and would cost several times the cost of a ticket at 1970s prices (which were considerable... especially for 1970)

Yep, this is nothing but an advertisement for a third rate airline offering a flight no-one wants.

Why would you pay a premium... and I mean a premium over far better carriers like Singapore Airlines to take a longer flight with no break? I regularly fly from the UK to Australia to see family (once or twice a year) and realistically the 12-14 hour leg between Singapore and London is enough, especially in economy... even economy on a Singapore Airlines A380. Having an hour or two in Singapore where you can get a proper meal, use a proper toilet and properly stretch your legs (on a nice, static, non moving floor) is a godsend on a flight that takes 20-26 hours depending on which Australian city you're flying to.

Even if I were to fly QF again after the 2011 stranding of passengers to shaft employees... I'd have to have rocks in my head to pay more to fly for 23 hours with no break (estimated time from LHR-SYD) over flying Singapore where the stopover will at worse make it 26 hours. Hell, last time I flew to Oz I opted for the longer stopover and got a hotel in Singapore for the night which made a hell of a difference to how I felt when arriving back in London.

What should be noted, this is not a revenue flight, it's a test flight so it's not breaking any actual records. When this does start a revenue service the first thing it'll do is cannibalise the passengers on the current PER-LHR long haul flight as people who don't already fly QANTAS aren't going to be daft enough to take a less desirable flight for more money. So they'll be forced to kill that route to keep the LHR-MEL/SYD routes going which still won't be profitable so they'll be forced to cut those down. They can send the 787 Squeezeliners they use on the LHR-PER route to have the cabins refitted for regular routes but the A350s they've bought for this will be more expensive to run on regular routes even if they shove the maximum number of permissible seats onto them leaving them with planes that are unprofitable.... wouldn't be the first time and yep, they'll have their hands out to the Australian government again to pay for it.

Which is why you never answer "yes" to anything a prosecutor asks you. It's always a trap. In this case, asking if this is your account and not asking if you sent those messages is the trap.

Hard disagree.

There are mistakes that can happen - getting a phone number wrong, knocking on the wrong street number, stuff like that, sure.

But all of those mistakes need to be found and fixed DURING the investigation. This is the duty of the police officiers.

Not finding any evidence and STILL going to trial - that's on the prosecution. But I doubt that there would have been a conviction if police had not omitted things or outright lied in court. I doubt any courd would hand down a guilty verdict if all the police involved said that they found no evidence of anything.

Yet he managed to do that without having jackbooted masked thugs going door to door intimidating anyone who looks "foreign" and randomly shooting people that protest or resist.

Yeah I very much liked to read it as well. Goes to show that some engineers deeply care about the neatness and maintainability of our beloved kernel.

You can call a piece of coal "off-white, tending towards darkish", or you can call it "black". Both are technically not incorrect. Only one of them is not intentionally misleading.

The whole shit is obviously intended to chill critique. If you are seriously offended by someone calling you an incompetent ass, then politics isn't for you, go get a real job.

And the police really have more important things to do than scaring pensioners who got a bit emotional online. (one of the most famous raids was in 2024 against a 64-year old guy who had called a minister "Schwachkopf" (english: dimwit).

Tell me you think that justifies sending the police to someone's home. Seriously, these people need to get a grip. You can call me dimwit all day and I wouldn't dream of sending the police after you.

What else would you call it when police arrives at your home at 6 am to search it because you posted something online? (like they would find a reddit posting in your sock drawer, I mean come on, seriously?)

During the ""Aktionstage gegen Hasspostings" (Action Days Against Hate Speech), around a hundred or so such raids are conducted on the same day, and a substantial portion of those is for insulting politicians.

The details are clickbait, and the take questionable, but there is enough truth in it. From my perspective (I'm Germany, but I currently live elsewhere, but still follow German politics closely):

One, there is a considerable crisis in the German manufacturing industry. And the current government has pushed through (with questionable methods) and insane military spending bill while at the same time complaining everywhere else that there is no money and they need to cut this and that and everything else.

Two, there is a strong US influence in european politics, and especially in Germany. A long list of recent and current high-ranking German politicians has direct connections to US think tanks or corporations, and an even larger number found employ with these or US universities, etc. after they were voted out. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that they're hired for their competence or out of charity.

This is not the only case and there HAVE been police raids and quite a bit of police overreach, all in the name of a law specifically made to protect politicians. There have been several HUNDRED cases brought by politiciians against ordinary people for things they posted online.

You can discuss individual cases, but that doesn't change the pattern.

And, btw., this is not a right- oder left-wing topic. The dude in question here is a right-wing politician (the CDU being Germany's equivalent to the Republicans). Not the most right-extremist-wing, but clearly right-wing, pro-corporation, fuck-the-working-class right-wing.

I never would have guessed the British Royal Family posted on /.

Shout out to King Chuck the Wingnut.